Hardware/sofware and UAD-1

For those who have built clasical devices like La2A, 1176LN, Neve etc, I would like to ask if you have tried the respective sofware emulation from the ÜAD-.1 card, or even convolution based emulations the already are over there. It´s worth the hardware? just for curious.

I sold my UAD stuff right after i build my first G-Pultec :grin:

Lars

I have an 1176LN and the UAD 1176LN. The plugin definitely has the same character, but just isn't in the same league when pushed really hard. The UAD 1174LN is way closer than the Bomb Factory version, however. I have the same feeling about the Neve EQ plugs, they get the vibe, but can't compare to the hardware when driven hard.
The UAD plug I'm most impressed with is the Space Echo, which made me give back the real one I had borrowed, and give up my desire to own a hardware unit.

The LA-3A plugin is an interesting contender.

I haven't been able to compare a Pultec, LA-2A, , or Fairchild (although I can make this one do Beatles type tricks).

In conclusion, the UAD is a very useful tool, but shouldn't stop you from DIY'ing sweet hardware!

Craig

I wouldn't sell my uads, because recallability is a very good thing to have for me. But my MNats 1176 smokes the Uad easily. I haven't compared the 1073, I didn't buy the plugin because I have 24 to plug in
The UAD plugs seem to kindof get close to the character of the original, but hardly seem to make the last 20% which really kick. The UAD Neve comp is nice, but my 2254s go way further. Same with Duende, the buscomp is good, but the real analogue thing is just the ticket.
Nevertheless, I don't look at plugins as exact replicas. They can do amazing things, but they are different. It is nice to have a noise-free Dim D and Roland chorus, and the real space echo is nicer than the plug, but the plug syncs to the song e.t.c.

So I'm happy to have both, some of the 'real' stuff for recording, buses and special needs during mixing and the plugs for the quick'n dirty treatment which always comes up automatically with the song being loaded.

Michael

I sold my UAD-1s after I build some stuff myself. I've tried for ages to get the sound I wanted out of the plugins but never suceeded. Turns out I can dial it in within seconds using the hardware.

I'm deeply grateful to Jakob and the others who enable me to have state of the art equipment. It makes all the difference in my productions.

Thanks guys. It´s interesting.
I thought the plugins were at the same level as hardware. The dubts that the hardware makes to me, is the thing that once you have recorded something through a device, EQ, Compressor, you have no go back, if you want to adjust a diferent way.
The thing that the hardware go better, more realistic makes decisions more complicated. You need to have pretty good experience if you can record a vocal and directly compress it forever, with the right ratio, will need on the mix.
In the other hand, there is the posibility of insert the compresor on the channel during a final mix. That means the needing of a good big console, good AD/DA etc.

[quote author="lagoausente"]The dubts that the hardware makes to me, is the thing that once you have recorded something through a device, EQ, Compressor, you have no go back, if you want to adjust a diferent way.[/quote]

That can in many cases be a good thing. It makes you move on to the next whatnot, but if you have compressed the crap out of something you shouldn't, then the plug ins are really sweet.

I hate to cross-link, but I just did a hardware vs software shootout over here. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/139156-uad-la2a-vs-hardware-la2a-sound-examples.html

My DIY Drip LA2a vs UAD La2a. Take a listen to the samples on the front page and tell me if you can pick the hardware. The answer is on page 3.

I've built 4 La2a's now. 2 with vintage component and 2 with modern components. When I get the front panels finished, I'll post some pics and samples here of the two units back to back so everyone can hear the differences.

Damon :thumb:

I voted as A was the hardware before knowing the answer.
I listened to the Acoustic and the Rock clips. Anyway I think A and B clips haven´t the same level of compression.
I hear B clip on the Acoustic more compressed, or if you like, with the threshold lower. I hear the compression on clip A only on the crests.

On Rock clips, I hear just the opposite. The Hardware a little more compressed than the Sofware, and this one seems less level, maybe because less compressed.

Do you still have the original waveforms? I would like to compare myself with my UAD1.

Also, I would like to compare with some impulses for convolution based plugins, have you done that?

[quote author="lagoausente"]I voted as A was the hardware before knowing the answer.
I listened to the Acoustic and the Rock clips. Anyway I think A and B clips haven´t the same level of compression.
I hear B clip on the Acoustic more compressed, or if you like, with the threshold lower. I hear the compression on clip A only on the crests.

On Rock clips, I hear just the opposite. The Hardware a little more compressed than the Sofware, and this one seems less level, maybe because less compressed.

Do you still have the original waveforms? I would like to compare myself with my UAD1.[/quote]

For sure, the originals are posted on page 2 or 3 of the thread.

FYI - I used the nulling technique to get as close as possible. I set the output gains to register the same amount and then varied the threshold for the biggest null between files. You're welcome to try and get closer if you wish.

In some cases I had to make a judgment call on what element I wished to null the most... for the drums I could get a good null on the kick, but it allowed more snare through... if I nulled for snare, I would get more kick. I'm sure this has to do with the differing attack/release characteristics of the hardware vs the software... and I'd probably have these same issues if I tried to null between two hardware units.

I'm sure this has to do with the differing attack/release characteristics of the hardware vs the software...

Click to expand...

I thought just the same. My first impression was that the hardware units had a faster response in attack/relase or at least a less noticecable curve, I mean, I´m not sure if it´s just a question of atack/release time or if it´s more like if were a more progresive curve that makes less noticecable when starts to compress.
On the Sofware samples, specially the Acoustic one, it´s very evident when the compressor enters. And seems go sudenly from no compress to a 2:1.
In the hardware seems like if the threshold point were more large, and so if like start the compression at , 1.2:1 1.5:1 or something like that.
I have another theory, maybe the hardware compress separately the highs and the low frequencies? something like an internal multiband compressor? All this a all speculations I´m thinking now since I don´t know how works the La2A hardware unit. You´ll better know that.
I thought about this because usually, sofware compressors, even the best ones, the high frequencies often suffer more, or became less life, and dull.
I think any type of multiband must be needed, because sometimes we end compressing high frequencies that are already on low level. And the threshold the first it sees are the lowest frequencies, or if you want , the fundamental wave, what are usually at much higher level that the harmonics.

[quote author="Michael Tibes"]I wouldn't sell my uads, because recallability is a very good thing to have for me. But my MNats 1176 smokes the Uad easily. I haven't compared the 1073, I didn't buy the plugin because I have 24 to plug in [/quote]

I know this is going to sound like sacrilege, but I kind of prefer the UAD 1176LN to my Mnats build with Cinemag input transformer and OEP output transformer. It has better bottom end and more snappiness. Sorry. However, one thing I can't do with the UAD plugin is track through it.

Brad

I have been thinking again about this issue. Have heared again the samples from the crosslink, and I selected B, so I prefered sofware in the first blind listening. Curious, but my question now is, how do you use your hardware,  only before AD conversion? Or do you still prefer mixing through hardware even it requires to make an unnecesary DA/AD conversion..?

For me, the main advantage of hardware over software apart from sound (cause to me they still sound better) is originality.

If you think about it, everyone with a UAD plugin is using the same algorythms.

In a hardware unit, every component imprints its own sound characteristic... resistors, caps, transformers, etc... This means engineers, producers and studios can tailor there devices to have a unique sound. At the end of the day, it is our "sound" that attracts customers.

just my 2 cents

J

lagoausente said:

Thanks guys.  It´s interesting.  
 I thought the plugins were at the same level as hardware.  The dubts that the hardware makes to me, is the thing that once you have recorded something through a device, EQ, Compressor, you have no go back, if you want to adjust a diferent way.

Click to expand...

You mean you have to make a decision about my production?   :'(

While I'm recording it???  

Noooooo, please say it isn't so.   ;D

Mark
(tongue firmly planted in my cheek)

There seems to be a kind of generic mix template these days. Boring production sound of digital studios. The Modern Sound.

Total recall of absolutely everything might be the main reason. You always get the "best" safest choice, and if you didn't, you can always go back and fix it with perfect recall.

But when recording and mixing with hardware, you have to commit, commit and commit!

Fuck up the sound, and you're stuck with it.

I love this danger. I feel kind of proud when I nail a sound while recording, and don't have to do anything to it in a mix. A broad stroke. The more drastic settings the better. These choices always influence later production as well. Don't have the possibility to go back an fix the odd bass or snare track, so other sounds now must live with it. And they usually live more interesting lives this way.

lagoausente said:

I have been thinking again about this issue. Have heared again the samples from the crosslink, and I selected B, so I prefered sofware in the first blind listening. Curious, but my question now is, how do you use your hardware,  only before AD conversion? Or do you still prefer mixing through hardware even it requires to make an unnecesary DA/AD conversion..?

Click to expand...

I used to think it was sufficient to hook up the outboard to a good multichannel ADDA converter and still mix in the box. Got good results, but it was a lot of work to get it right and a nightmare with the computer. Now I've got the mod of my (rather small and humble) console completed and mix through it using the outboard. It's another big step up. Mixing is far more fun without the harshness and the tracks not cluttering the midrange, I can put more bass and high end into the mix with it still sounding good, the result sounds more finished, punchy, natural this way and I can put my best 2-channel AD converter behind the console or go straight to tape without conversion. Total recall would be nice, but this is not so much of a problem because the results are there much quicker.

I aim to not make it complicated. I set my signal chain so it sounds good. That's about all.
Use some Chandler plugins at mixdown only because i don't have a real desk right now.

The UADs are the best plugins i ever used. But comparing my D-LA2A to the UAD LA2A, compression is more transparent, nicer, ear-friendly on the hardware (as expected). It´s time to think about building a dual pultec after the PM670 and 1176 is done !

I´ll keep using the UAD´s for as long as they exist.

Silvas said:

The UADs are the best plugins i ever used. But comparing my D-LA2A to the UAD LA2A, compression is more transparent, nicer, ear-friendly on the hardware (as expected). It´s time to think about building a dual pultec after the PM670 and 1176 is done !

I´ll keep using the UAD´s for as long as they exist.

Click to expand...

  Considering a limited budget,  (unless you want to re-record a track using DA/AD, or direct tracking through hardware), you´ll have limit to aply diferent compression settings to diferent instruments. UADs have this advantage.
 How much cost a DIY Pultec, or La2A aprox?
  Considering DIY this devices for mastering, do you think it´s worth only for this purpose while using UADS for individual tracks?
 Summing boxes plus L2A,Pultecs etc hardware seems the ideal for the whole mixing, but that may be a lot of $$ even in DIY,  I think..
  In the other hand, I have been thinking about Soniccore Xite-1 Dsp, what seems to have similar plugins to UAD, and that portable unit has a lot of dsp power, 10x the old Scope Pro cards.